Alejandra Rivas-Montenegro, Roberto Añez-Ramos, Alba Galdón-Sanz Pastor, Olga González-Albarrán
{"title":"2型糖尿病住院患者持续血糖监测:住院患者血糖控制的新进展","authors":"Alejandra Rivas-Montenegro, Roberto Añez-Ramos, Alba Galdón-Sanz Pastor, Olga González-Albarrán","doi":"10.1016/j.eprac.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the effect and safety of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in glycemic control compared to standard approach in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial that enrolled 37 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes admitted in medical and surgical wards. All patients used CGM (Abbott FreeStyle2 or FreeStyle3) and concomitantly 6-point point of care glucose. In group A (n = 19), daily CGM profiles, alarms, and trend arrows were considered for glycemic therapeutic decisions and in group B (n = 18) were based on point of care glucose. Primary outcomes included the difference in time in range 70-180 mg/dL, hospital glycemia risk index, time below range measured as the percentage below 70 mg/dL and below 54 mg/dL, and time above range measured as the percentage above 180 mg/dL and above 250 mg/dL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time in range was higher in group A: 78.26 ± 10.83% vs 67.39 ± 19.13% P = .04. Time above range level 1 in group A: 14.37 ± 8.33% vs group B: 23.28 ± 16.62% P = .04. Asymptomatic hypoglycemic events were more detected by CGM-group (1.65 ± 2.03 vs 0.31 ± 0.60 P = .01). Overall mean absolute relative difference: 14.7%. Diabetes technology society error grid: 69.5% zone A and 29.3% zone B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of CGM in hospitals could represent a significant advancement in diabetes management, offering a more comprehensive and dynamic approach to monitoring glucose levels. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of CGM on clinical outcomes and to optimize its integration into hospital protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":11682,"journal":{"name":"Endocrine Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Step Forward in Inpatient Glycemic Control.\",\"authors\":\"Alejandra Rivas-Montenegro, Roberto Añez-Ramos, Alba Galdón-Sanz Pastor, Olga González-Albarrán\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eprac.2025.02.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the effect and safety of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in glycemic control compared to standard approach in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial that enrolled 37 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes admitted in medical and surgical wards. All patients used CGM (Abbott FreeStyle2 or FreeStyle3) and concomitantly 6-point point of care glucose. In group A (n = 19), daily CGM profiles, alarms, and trend arrows were considered for glycemic therapeutic decisions and in group B (n = 18) were based on point of care glucose. Primary outcomes included the difference in time in range 70-180 mg/dL, hospital glycemia risk index, time below range measured as the percentage below 70 mg/dL and below 54 mg/dL, and time above range measured as the percentage above 180 mg/dL and above 250 mg/dL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time in range was higher in group A: 78.26 ± 10.83% vs 67.39 ± 19.13% P = .04. Time above range level 1 in group A: 14.37 ± 8.33% vs group B: 23.28 ± 16.62% P = .04. Asymptomatic hypoglycemic events were more detected by CGM-group (1.65 ± 2.03 vs 0.31 ± 0.60 P = .01). Overall mean absolute relative difference: 14.7%. Diabetes technology society error grid: 69.5% zone A and 29.3% zone B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of CGM in hospitals could represent a significant advancement in diabetes management, offering a more comprehensive and dynamic approach to monitoring glucose levels. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of CGM on clinical outcomes and to optimize its integration into hospital protocols.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endocrine Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endocrine Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2025.02.007\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endocrine Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2025.02.007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Step Forward in Inpatient Glycemic Control.
Objective: To determine the effect and safety of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in glycemic control compared to standard approach in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.
Methods: This was a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial that enrolled 37 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes admitted in medical and surgical wards. All patients used CGM (Abbott FreeStyle2 or FreeStyle3) and concomitantly 6-point point of care glucose. In group A (n = 19), daily CGM profiles, alarms, and trend arrows were considered for glycemic therapeutic decisions and in group B (n = 18) were based on point of care glucose. Primary outcomes included the difference in time in range 70-180 mg/dL, hospital glycemia risk index, time below range measured as the percentage below 70 mg/dL and below 54 mg/dL, and time above range measured as the percentage above 180 mg/dL and above 250 mg/dL.
Results: Time in range was higher in group A: 78.26 ± 10.83% vs 67.39 ± 19.13% P = .04. Time above range level 1 in group A: 14.37 ± 8.33% vs group B: 23.28 ± 16.62% P = .04. Asymptomatic hypoglycemic events were more detected by CGM-group (1.65 ± 2.03 vs 0.31 ± 0.60 P = .01). Overall mean absolute relative difference: 14.7%. Diabetes technology society error grid: 69.5% zone A and 29.3% zone B.
Conclusions: The implementation of CGM in hospitals could represent a significant advancement in diabetes management, offering a more comprehensive and dynamic approach to monitoring glucose levels. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of CGM on clinical outcomes and to optimize its integration into hospital protocols.
期刊介绍:
Endocrine Practice (ISSN: 1530-891X), a peer-reviewed journal published twelve times a year, is the official journal of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE). The primary mission of Endocrine Practice is to enhance the health care of patients with endocrine diseases through continuing education of practicing endocrinologists.